On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 17:49 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > It would be better if GCC had a 'nopadding' attribute which gave us
> > what we need without the _extra_ implications about alignment.
>
> That's impossible; removing the padding from a struct
> _will_ make accesses to its members unaligned (think
> about arrays of that struct).
It _might_ make accesses to _some_ of its members unaligned.
That's why I said 'without the __EXTRA__ implications about alignment'.
Obviously the lack of padding has its own implications, but we don't
necessarily need to assume that the struct may be at arbitrary
locations.
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
